Apple's big lie about job creation, and other bogus claims

[FarCenter]

Apple has created or supported more than 500,000 jobs. Phishing attacks cost the economy $234 billion a year. And giving social and mobile CRM tools to salespeople makes them 26.4 percent more productive. All these preposterous numbers are floating around the Web these days, peddled by PR people who count on easy hooks to sell their products, burnish their clients' images, or advance an agenda.

Apple's attempt at statistical flimflammery is the most offensive because it's a transparent attempt to change the public conversation about Apple from the question of atrocious labor practices in the Chinese factories that make iPhones and iPads to job creation. (Of course, yesterday's announcement of "the new iPad" will help in the diversion as well.)

The misuse of statistics and the preparation of allegedly scientific surveys designed to fool is spread across the Web by the axis of fakery: tech companies, PR agencies, and gullible (or feckless) journalists. Taking a cue from our friends at NPR's "Car Talk," I'll periodically call "Bogus!" on the most egregious examples of statistical and survey fakery by tech companies and their agents. I encourage you to spot them and forward them to Tech's Bottom Line for the ridicule they deserve.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/apples-big-lie-about-job-creation-and-other-bogus-claims-188231

[tridim]

1. I just found it funny that the iPad3 is being marketed as "thinner and lighter"..

While it is actually thicker and heavier than the iPad2. How do they get away with it?

Apple is the flimflam king.

[tridim]

4. Yesterday, all day on MSNBC.

Reading directly from Apple press packets.

[tridim]

11. No I don't have the Apple press sheet that was read on MSNBC all day.

If MSNBC was lying about the iPad 3's specs I'd certainly want to know why.

[tridim]

14. Well Tesha, obviously that isn't going to happen.

MSNBC said "The new iPad is thinner and lighter than previous iPads"

Take it up with them.

Apple has been lying about their specs since 1976.

[Zalatix]

20. AppleInsider is also saying the same thing.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392545,00.asp

I found a number of sources saying this. Perhaps they're ALL getting the wrong information? From whom, exactly? I'm willing to bet: from Apple.

[sudopod]

32. carrying over from the earlier thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002400575#post126

How much time did you spend on this thread?

Why is this issue more upsetting to you than, say, what Rush Limbaugh said or how Rick Santorum has a shot at being president?

[sudopod]

35. Who cares?

Apple is a big company. They pay people to do what you are doing. They'll be alright.

It doesn't impact your life the same way being forced to pay 50-80 bucks a pop for birth control because-God-said-so would, so why is it such a big deal?

[Zalatix]

37. Oooh... sting.

[sudopod]

38. heh. Not trying to score points, though.

If we could understand how this...passion works, and redirect it, we could save the world.

EDIT: This poster is a good DUer, as are several other folks who are on the Apple wagon. I've nodded along to her posts before. That makes the whole defend-the-enormous-corporation-at-all-costs thing even more curious to me. What wizardry did they use to co-opt so many quality minds?

[CountAllVotes]

7. supposedly the screen is better

Main/only improvement for a new little toy. And expensive little toy at that.

[Snake Alchemist]

12. It starts at a mere $499.00 + tax. I've been selling my blood and plasma every day this month to

save up for it.

[FSogol]

39. Slacker, sell a kidney and you'd have that money already!

[Snake Alchemist]

41. I almost forgot I have two! nt

[Pholus]

49. Moore's law? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Please, stop using terms you do not understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

[randome]

3. Right. Coming out with new products is clearly an attempt to distract us all.

Jesus, I don't know about anyone else, but I always take what a corporation says at face value. Corporations, unlike people, don't lie or obfuscate.

[CountAllVotes]

5. 3 new IPADS bought in >1 year =

Nice BIG profit there for Apple, like about $6,000.00 with all of the toys attached for a piece o'crap IMO.

[CountAllVotes]

15. Buy them brand new from Apple

And don't forget all of the extras they'll sell you to go with the 3 IPADS and don't forget the almost 10% sales tax where I live. That is how it adds up to so much $$$ (abt. $2,000.00 each/with toys, etc.).

These toys are expensive and frankly, I wouldn't want one.

They do nothing at all for me, nothing.

[CountAllVotes]

19. yep

That adds up to $1,000.00 each and include no toys/programs, etc. to go with it.

[Pholus]

42. Are you sure you didn't mean to type "(TM)"?

[Sherman A1]

18. Agreed

Anyone who spent $6K on three iPads may need to shop a bit more wisely. Even buying the most tricked out units with the available accessories adding shipping & sales tax, one would be hard pressed to reach that number.

But, hey my iPad 1 is working just fine.

[former9thward]

8. The link does nothing to disprove the 500,000 jobs.

He just stomps his feet and says "I don't think its true!'. He attacks the use of job creation multipliers statistics but this is exactly what President Obama uses when he talks about job creation with the stimulus.

[Zalatix]

21. True. Apple did create 500,000 jobs

Almost all of which were created IN CHINA.

[former9thward]

22. And your snark does nothing to disprove it either.

[Zalatix]

23. Snark, snark! Snark! You better believe it.

Oh and... Apple is the one that made the claim of creating 500,000 jobs here, and they have no proof.

So let me think... should I make an exception in my rule about NOT drinking the corporate kool-aid just because it's apple-flavored, or should I snark?

I choose to snark.

Fuck the corporations.

[former9thward]

25. Actually they did prove it in their release.

The blogger was throwing a temper tantrum because he couldn't disprove it. What are you using to post "Fuck the corporations'? Was it something you created yourself?

[Zalatix]

26. Ah, so Apple released a bunch of claims to back up a claim. Gotcha.

[Pholus]

28. Easily shown to be Corporate Spin by CNET.

Link later in this thread. Just thought you'd like to know...

[former9thward]

29. I read the link.

As I said in an earlier post it was a temper tantrum by someone who couldn't disprove the claim. It amounted to 'I don't believe it'. When President Obama uses the same statistical model to say the stimulus created or saved 2 million jobs -- is that "corporate spin" too? What exactly is the number if you don't think it is true? What model do you use?

[Pholus]

40. Hmmm, you seem stuck on the single category of the correction.

Can you address any of the OTHER specifics?

[former9thward]

43. When I know one thing is a lie I assume all others are too.

Other posters have shown the claim Apple was saying the new ipad was 'thinner and lighter' was a lie by the blogger. No such thing was said. It is obvious that the blogger has an agenda and is more than happy to lie to promote it.

[Pholus]

44. Seems you're WRONG AGAIN, your blogger is merely quoting the tech media. Here are *several* links:

Most of them sourced in some inane gossip last year about the battery weight. I guess buzz can be negative or false too, as well.

Mar 7, 2012: "Lighter, thinner iPad 3 features 2 cameras, sharper screen and a faster processor" http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2012/03/07/news/doc4f57a887ad44b605731852.txt
Feb 9, 2012: "Thinner, lighter design" http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-31747_7-10011251-7.html?s=0&o=10011251
Sept 7, 2011: "iPad 3 battery pointing to thinner, lighter tablet?" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20102563-37/ipad-3-battery-pointing-to-thinner-lighter-tablet/

Obviously the new bauble does not compete well in the thickness/lightness arena compared to some tablets. But that's not important.

What is important is that you realize your "dismiss one, dismiss all" argument was not unexpected. A lot of times, coping with cognitive dissonance is best achieved by completely latching on to one things as a justification to discount all sources saying things you don't want to hear.

I sympathize. It's hard to try to be an absolutist in an complicated world.

[former9thward]

45. It was not my blogger. I was quoting some of the earlier posters in this thread.

In their zeal to be in front of the hate Apple crowd they claimed Apple was marketing the new ipad as "thinner and lighter". Apple did not such thing. It was a lie

The main point to the OP, which you are avoiding -- I don't blame you --, was that Apple is falsely claiming to have created 500,000 U.S. jobs. The blogger in the OP claims that using a statistical multiplier model is wrong --- of course the blogger offers no better model. This is the exact same model that President Obama uses when he talks about 2 million jobs created or saved from the stimulus. Is he wrong too? It is the same model the Labor Department uses for their stats.

So what model should be used? What is your number for jobs Apple has created? I won't be surprised if there is silence to those questions.

[Pholus]

46. Ahhhh, yes. I haven't addressec the infamous half million number. See Post 27. Yesterday.

Which it seems that you said you read already. So does relying on Siri too much affect reading comprehension or something?

Now, since reading seems tedious for you, but in post 27 I agreed that a multiplier exists but that the underlying assumptions to the calculation are one sided and so 500000 is most likely a rather generous overestimate.

Now, I can see in your high dudgeon that I am supposed to somehow become an economist to satisfy you. Not how that works. I don't need to propose an alternate model to recognize obvious flaws and wishful thinking in the assumptions behind in the "study."

Oh wait, "study" is a bit of a reach here.

Try COMMISSIONED report. You know, money changed hands for this. No conflict of interest or appearance of Corporate PR at work, nosiree!

[former9thward]

47. Do you have the same complaints about the 2 million job number

President Obama uses?

If the Apple number was off by much there would be hundreds of blogs on the internet attacking it. It wouldn't be hard to find. No I don't rely on Siri. I know you won't believe it but I have never owned or operated an Apple product. The only time I have ever been in an Apple store is when I was giving a lift to a buddy. I do think they are a great American company and according to everything I hear put out a great product. I don't see anything wrong with that but I am not one of those who go around looking to get outraged at something everyday.

[Pholus]

48. Well, maybe the problem is too little Siri...

And not enough logic. I see this pathetic little trap that somehow if I dispute Apple I must dispute the President's numbers.

Freepers try oversimplified gotchas like that. I expect better from you.

See, your argument is based on the lynchpin that the multiplier is the only consideration.
Given their 47000 jobs and the half million claimed job impact, Apple would have to be claiming a
Type I multiplier of 10. That would be a factor of 6-8 times higher than typical values and
would (if this fanatasy were true) be a lie of the most blatant sort.

Now, this actually has me defending Apple against YOU here but they ARE NOT SAYING THAT.
They made a ton of other assumptions (many of which were incredibly overgenerous and completely
negected offsetting negatives) and then applied a multiplier TO THAT that is generally regarded as an overestimate.

I already explained this WITH SPECIFICS AND A LINK, IN POST 27. No need to repeat the contents. They are still there.

[LanternWaste]

24. In other relevant and breaking news, Coke fans tell us Pepsi is canned poop.

In other relevant and breaking news, Coke fans tell us Pepsi is canned poop.

The 1980 Cola Wars, Part II: My Computer Tastes Better Than Yours.

[sudopod]

33. People really used to get upset about that, didn't they?

How crazy is that?

[Pholus]

27. Your article was more of a general criticism of bogus stats. For the Apple claim, see...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57389608-17/are-apple-products-really-fueling-the-u.s-job-market-eh-maybe/

Highlights include:

- neglecting the effect of job losses in competing products in the "jobs created" figure
- claiming employees who before Apple had full time jobs (in shipping companies) as additions when the jobs existed beforehand
- averaging over "App" sales the number of developers. Some very successful apps make lots of money. Most don't. How many full time jobs? Less than claimed.
- and of course the "multiplier" for which serious economists treat as no more than an upper bound.
- Companies like Corning are mentioned by name but it is trivial to find articles which place the bulk of their production in China.

Finally, the study was COMMISSIONED by Apple. It is not independent. Before I go farther, of course Apple can claim these effects since it is a real phenomenon of course. It just makes a LOT of wishful assumptions. As such it is a questionable number.

As far as a multiplier goes, however, I would add that if Apple PRODUCED these devices in the US the cost is not much higher and the number of jobs created is even greater.

So, my advice is to take that study and file it under Corporate PR.

[jsmirman]

36. Seems pretty damning

I'm having a hard time understanding how this can be trumpeted with such glee.

And while we're at it, Apple, if you actually give a damn, how about reducing worker hours, dealing with unsafe conditions, preventing work-caused worker infirmity and death and maybe even selling humanely-produced products - I know I'd pay more for a sticker that actually meant something.

The move back toward a Lochner-era way of thinking in this country is scary as all hell - when it comes to exporting that sort of cruelty, what we're looking at is even worse.